Peer Review Process 
All submitted manuscripts are assessed by the editor(s) for suitability for the review process. The views of an Editorial Board member may be sought for further input towards this decision. To save authors and referees time, only those manuscripts judged most likely to meet the editorial criteria are sent out for formal review. 
Manuscripts that are sent for formal review typically go to two referees, with expertise in the pertinent subject area. It is the major editorial policy to review the submitted articles as fast as possible. 
Reviewers are asked whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent and will assess the manuscript quality. Reviewers are also asked to indicate which articles they consider to be especially interesting or significant. 
·      to accept the manuscript, with or without minor revision. 
·      to invite the authors to revise the manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached. 
·   to reject the manuscript, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems. 
Referees may recommend a particular course of action in their confidential comments to the editor but should bear in mind that the editors may have to decide based on conflicting advice. Furthermore, editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, but rather are based on an evaluation of the strengths of the arguments raised by each referee and by the authors. 
The comments of the anonymous reviewers will be forwarded to authors. 
Referees may be asked for further advice, particularly in cases when there is a certain level of disagreement among reviewers, or when the authors believe that they have been misunderstood in specific points. In certain cases, additional referees or members of our Editorial Board may be consulted to resolve disputes, but this is avoided unless there is a specific issue on which further advice is required. 
Referee policy treats the contents of papers under review as privileged information not to be disclosed to others before publication. It is expected that no one with access to a paper under review will make any inappropriate use of the special knowledge which that access providers. 
The review process shall ensure that all authors have equal opportunity for publication of their papers. 
Acceptance and scheduling of publication of papers in these periodicals shall not be impeded by added criteria and procedures beyond those contained in the review process. 
Submitted papers must be in English and should not have been published elsewhere or being currently under consideration by any other Journal. 
Authors are kindly asked to submit their manuscript according to the corresponding template for each series. 
The Editor-in-Chief, co-editors and series editors will then decide about publication in the Journal and authors will be notified. 
All manuscripts accepted for publication are subject to editing by the publisher for presentation, style, and grammar. The Editor's committee decision is final.
            Reviewers’ Guidelines 
The review process is an important aspect of the publication process of an article. It helps an editor in making decision on an article and enables the author to improve the manuscript. 
Before accepting to review a manuscript, reviewers should ensure that: 
·    The manuscript is within their area of expertise. 
·    They can dedicate the appropriate time to conduct a critical review of the manuscript. 
Conflict of Interest 
“Conflict of interest (COI) exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behaviour or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests”.  
 “Reviewers should declare their relationships and activities that might bias their evaluation of a manuscript and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists”. 
Manuscripts are confidential materials given to a reviewer in trust for the sole purpose of critical evaluation. Reviewers should ensure that the review process is confidential. Details of the manuscript and the review process should remain confidential during and after the review process. 
 “Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others”.  
Reviews should be honest and objective and not be influenced by: 
·    The origin of the manuscript 
·    Religious, political, or cultural viewpoint of the author 
·    Gender, race, ethnicity, or citizenry of the author 
·    Review reports 
In evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should focus on the following: 
·    Originality 
·    Contribution to the field 
·    Technical quality 
·    Clarity of presentation 
·    Depth of research 
Reviewers should also observe that the author(s) have followed the instruction for authors, editorial policies, and publication ethics. 
The report should be accurate, objective, constructive and unambiguous. Comments should be backed by facts and constructive arguments with regards to the content of the manuscript. 
Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript; however necessary corrections and suggestions for improvements should be made. 
Reviewers should only accept a manuscript when they are confident that they can dedicate appropriate time in reviewing. Thus, reviewers should review and return manuscripts in a timely manner. 
Reviewers’ recommendation should be either: 
·    Accept 
·    Requires minor corrections 
·    Requires major revision 
·    Not suitable for the Journal 
·    Reject 
Recommendation should be backed with constructive arguments and facts based on the content of the manuscript.
 Responsibility of Reviewers 
The reviewers must only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the required assessment expertise and which they can assess in a timely manner. 
In reviewing an article, the reviewer must respect the confidentiality of the review process and the rights of the authors of the articles. 
The reviewers will not use any information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage or disadvantage. Accordingly, they shall keep any information they acquire at any time during or after review process confidential. 
The reviewers must declare all conflict of interests or potential conflict of interests. 
The reviewers will not be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, appeal to authority or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations. Peer review process is set up to minimize any instances of potential influence and bias. 
The reviewers must be professional, objective, and constructive in their reviews and refrain from being hostile or inflammatory. 
The reviewers must provide their personal and professional information, to the best of their knowledge, that is an accurate and true representation of their expertise. 
The existence of a submitted manuscript is not revealed to anyone other than the reviewers and editorial staff. All persons involved adhere to confidentiality guidelines and requirements. 
Reviewers' and authors' identities are kept confidential.